Posted
by
timothyon Monday January 09, 2012 @09:02AM
from the elaborate-put-on dept.

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Now aged 70, Prof Stephen Hawking, winner of 12 honorary degrees, a CBE and in 2009 awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, is an extraordinary man — but what is perhaps most extraordinary about Hawking is how he has defied and baffled medical experts who predicted he had just months to live in 1963, when he was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease (MND), a disease that only 5% survive for more than a decade after diagnosis. Hawking started having symptoms shortly before his 21st birthday. At first they were mild — a bit of clumsiness and few unexplained stumbles and falls but, predictably, by the very nature of the disease, his incurable condition worsened. The diagnosis came as a great shock, but also helped shape his future." (Read on, below.)

Pickens continues: "'Although there was a cloud hanging over my future, I found, to my surprise, that I was enjoying life in the present more than before. I began to make progress with my research, and I got engaged to a girl called Jane Wilde, whom I had met just about the time my condition was diagnosed,' says Hawking. 'That engagement changed my life. It gave me something to live for.' Another important thing in Hawking's life has been his work and at the age of 70, Hawking continues working at the University of Cambridge and recently published a new book — The Grand Design. 'Being disabled, or physically challenged, makes no difference to how my scientific colleagues treat me apart from practical matters like waiting while I write what I want to say.' Finally the grandfather-of-three continues to seek out new challenges and recently experienced first-hand what space travel feels like by taking a zero-gravity flight in a specially modified plane. 'People are fascinated by the contrast between my very limited physical powers, and the vast nature of the universe I deal with,' says Hawking. 'I'm the archetype of a disabled genius, or should I say a physically challenged genius, to be politically correct. At least I'm obviously physically challenged. Whether I'm a genius is more open to doubt.'"

He also has access to an amazing amount of healthcare. Not many people can afford full time staff to maintain their lives both personally and professionally. He has people so desperate to work with him that they train for years to understand his unique communication.

Actually, he'd probably do fine -- US universities generally have great benefits for their employees (good health insurance policies) and tend to be pretty flexible with sick leave for professors. My dad had a brain tumor and took 2 years of sick leave without any discussion of long-term disability, etc. There was another professor who had long-term kidney failure who basically gave a couple of lectures each semester for a decade and wasn't pressured to do more than that.

If you have health insurance, the US system is hard to beat.

The better question would be how would a young blue-collar worker with ALS fare. He would be completely screwed.

I wonder how would a young 21 year old academic with ALS fare in the USA.

US universities generally have great benefits for their employees (good health insurance policies) and tend to be pretty flexible with sick leave for professors

21 year old academics (even Stephen Hawking) are not professors, they are undergrads or grad students, and they do not get professor-level health insurance plans from the university. I'm a grad student on my university's health insurance policy, it's not bad at least for routine care although the co-pays are higher than when I was on my parent's plan. It costs me a little over $2,200/year, which is admittedly much less than tuition. Sidenote: thanks to "Obamacare" it is much easier for kids to stay on their parents health insurance plan to an older age (26 I think?), which is great if (A) your parent has a job with health insurance and (B) putting you on your parents plan doesn't cost more than you and your parent can afford.

The better question would be how would a young blue-collar worker with ALS fare. He would be completely screwed.

"Riding on the backs of the public"? They're the future of the public, unless you want society to be full of people without college degrees. Your view of society is ridiculously selfish and short-sighted. No wonder you think the way you do.

21 year olds are still covered by their parent's insurance (Assuming the parents have insurance). 26 is the new cut off age. If you turn 27 and get diagnosed with cancer, you're likely not going to have great options.

New job means crap benefits, but too much income to qualify for state plans.

Long version: $3,000/y medicaid, $6,000/y food stamps, and a free bus ticket. This is assuming he/she doesn't have a job. If they have a job the employers insurance company has to pay up to $3,000/y. They are out of pocket for medical expenses above $3,000/y either way.

I don't know about the UK and the NHS, but at least in Germany, he would be considered Pflegestufe III (support level III, more than 300 mins per day necessary, including necessary support between 10pm and 6am), and it would be fully covered by the (mandantory) support insurance.

What's sad is when I see people of all stripes debating against public healthcare, forgetting that they're condemning future thinkers or leaders or writers just because they (or their families) can't afford their own healthcare.

Capitalism says we have limited resources, but is there really a shortage of people who can help others ? Instead of hiding the medical practice behind the giant paywall that is med. school, maybe if you didn't need to be the son of a crooked senator to afford the damn piece of paper, we could crank out enough doctors to take care of everyone.

What's sad is when I see people of all stripes debating against public healthcare, forgetting that they're condemning future thinkers or leaders or writers just because they (or their families) can't afford their own healthcare.

I'm normally a very staunch conservative, but healthcare is one of my most liberal viewpoints. Even so, public healthcare isn't necessary to fix the US system. Nor is it a solution by itself. Unless we fix the other major issues, it won't solve the insanely cost inefficient US system. Profits and executive salaries make for a very small fraction of health care cost. (I believe less than 5% combined, although I'd have to research the exact numbers again to confirm.) There are some big issues that need to be addressed however to reign in cost. All three of the following individually add more to costs than the evil profits and executive salaries combined.

1. Wasted administrative costs - Centralize and standardize records, billing, procedure codes, pretty much everything you can. The process should be the same regardless of who your insurance is so less staff and training needed to handle all the different procedures.

2. Lawsuits - The cost of this is twofold and huge. First there's the actual insurance costs, which for high risk practices like neurosurgery can be astronomical. Second is the overly defensive medicine practiced. Doctors will perform more expensive tests and scans even though they know there's no need for them just so that if something does come up down the road, they've covered their rears. Mistakes happen. Caps should be put on the size of payouts against doctors and they should only have any payout if gross negligence can be proven.

3. Fraud - Whether it's homeless people calling 911 for free room and board for night and taking an ambulance to save on cab fair, or those leaving phony names and addresses with the emergency room to skip out on the bill, fraud adds significantly to cost. It can take up bed/staff/ambulance resources that can be needed in real emergencies as well. If we could properly deal with the homeless problem, it would solve part of the issue, and universal healthcare would solve more. No need to skip the bill if you're not paying. Still, we do need to go after and prosecute serial abusers of the system.

Now, if you solve all the issues above, I think you'll find the cost efficiency of the US system will come more in line with other countries. Then you can solve the other gaping problems without bankrupting the nation. Obviously universal healthcare, but you don't need to make it public or single payer. First regulate standard coverage that [b]must[/b] be covered by all insurance providers. Then require everyone to purchase health insurance (the government subsidizes the cost for those of low income.) There's no denial for preexisting conditions, and no dropping people or refusing to pay the mandated coverage.

Now, insurance companies can only compete it cost and value added services, such as covering no mandatory procedures like certain cosmetic surgeries or the like. You can even have nonprofit insurance organizes like co-ops compete with banks if people are really afraid of the cost of profits.

But the argument is that the existing privatised system enables the type of inefficient behavior you just described.

In countries that perform better than the US in healthcare, even the non-fully-nationalised systems, the state plays a very big role in regulation and legislation to enable the type of efficiencies you described. However, to admit that there is a role for government is not in the playbook of American conservatives, because they are afraid to promote any idea that deviates from their "Government always leads to inefficiency" script.

Meanwhile while you're trying to engineer a perfect system, years go by and people die. Free (or close enough) universal healthcare is a reality in most civilized countries you can think of, and they're not bankrupt because of it. Most issues you mention have been solved for decades. Privatized healthcare also exists on those countries, and from my own experience and the people close to me, they couldn't care less about you when you stop being a walking money bag or demand too much work.

America is not Britain, France, Canada, Germany, or any other country. America has it's own citizens with their own culture and their own viewpoints.

That's part of the problem - America is run by big dollar companies, and has been for decades. There's no "citizenship" in politics, decisions are made by pouring money on the pockets of the right people - and it's all legal. In every other country, if that ever happended, would be considered a crime.
The time it takes to get it done doesn't really matter, when you haven't started it yet.

2. The cost of lawsuits is twofold and small. Texas has already tried imposing limits on medical lawsuits. The numbers of malpractice suits has fallen through the floor and malpractice insurance rates have also fallen. Actual medical costs have not and continue to grow at well above the national average.

You can call it a straw man just like you can claim I'm a jellyfish. But I'm not, and my comment wasn't.

Welcome to reality, deal with it. You can either care for the sick or not. If you choose to care for them, you have to pay for it. If you have to pay for it, you must determine how. If you don't want to have the state pay for the the health of those who cannot afford it themselves, then you've chosen not to care for them.

if individual charity was adequate to solve these kinds of societal problems we wouldn't be having this debate because the problem would already be solved. Obviously there are not enough Ron Pauls out there to solve it through their own selflessness.

What IS obvious is that where there is an opportunity for a government to grab some power by instituting some new program under the guise of helping society somehow, the government will grab that power, will grab money for that power and eventually will destroy the very system that it set off to 'save' from a non-existing threat.

Gov't money is what is causing rise of prices in education, health care, houses, and all things now, that the USD and bonds are the current debt bubble being inflated.

It's not for the lack of charitable people or lack of doctors only charging what patients can pay.

It's gov't money, which come with regulations, that create monopolies, which lock out competition, including monopolies on health care, health insurance (which should be insurance and not managed health accounts, as they are now). People used to pay doctors out of pocket because the costs were low and falling, then came in government to fix an non-existing problem.

What's sad is when I see people of all stripes debating against public healthcare

What's sad is when well-meaning people push through quick fixes that are not sustainable, and then accuse others of ill will. Obama's health care plan (like NHS) has failure programmed into it: it simply is not sustainable.

It's good that Obama's health care plan gets some people who have fallen through the cracks the help they need. You're a fool if you think his plan is sustainable. And you're a jerk for accusing others of not caring about the sick and dying.

So your solution is to force others at gunpoint to do it? I'm all for helping others but making it mandatory is evil. The ends don't justify the means.

IMNSHO, "help to maintain the society you live in, as agreed by the society collectively, while doing your small part to steer the society to the direction your want, or GTFO" is perfectly fair deal. From this follows, it's perfectly valid to decide on what needs to be done, then collect taxes to do it, even when "it" is public health care system. And, same as for example requiring kids to be taught to read and write, ultimately everything required by so called civilized society is "at gunpoint".

So your solution is to force others at gunpoint to do it? I'm all for helping others but making it mandatory is evil. The ends don't justify the means.

You do understand that we actually are OK with paying for our socialized medicine, do you? Mostly because we know the downsides of the alternative. And yes, democracy is a bitch - the majority totally dominates the minority. With all of the negatives of socialised medicine, you will find absolutely small number of people think it should be scrapped for all private.
Hell! My country has a mixed system that actually works well. With a single payer system I get about 20% of the money I pay into it. While my mo

The only person holding that gun against your temple is yourself, by living in a structured society. If you don't like paying taxes and being somewhat protected from the evils of the world, you can disappear into the forest and live like your ancestors.

But, seeing as your last name is "Coward", I think you like the safety that social gun provides.

And if you explain that these system cost *less* than what we currently spend as a country on healthcare everyone ignores it and continues ranting on about entitlement and welfare and other bullshit divisive issues ingrained in their feeble minds.

You're missing the GP's point - the US government already pays more for healthcare per citizen than most countries with single-payer universal health care. You don't need to redirect billions, there's already enough being spent to provide health care to every citizen in the US. We just need to dump the insurance bureaucracy that is costing so much overhead.

I don't think he was saying it was perfect or great. He said it worked. No system is perfect. You just try for better, and sometimes you get it. Depending on the competition, sometimes it's not even that hard to get.

Citation needed. I often hear or see this claim made, but I've never seen any numbers or sources backing it up.

However, assuming it is true, one possible explanation is that the very highest quality medical care is available at the very highest prices in the USA. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to the question of how best to provide health care to the population at large.

Because they're rich and scared and will buy into the propaganda that says US medical care is better or they realise they're rich and want the pampered treatment you get in the US since you're paying through the nose or maybe the low value of the dollar makes it a better deal when your currency is worth more?.

A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that a plurality of an estimated 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care;[77] the same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006).

If you read that link too you'll see some US doctors are making their prices comprable to other countries which again makes it more attractive.

As with anything it's not as straight forward as Fox News makes it in their attacks on socialised medicine.

I wish I had mod points to mod you up, because that's a very succinct way of putting it.

I've lived both inside and outside of the US, and in my experience nearly every medical story that takes places in the US is a horror story that ends in pain, bankruptcy, disability, or death, while most stories coming from elsewhere are merely horror stories about inconvenience, delays, or the occasional mistake.

I've not had a ton of experience with the government supplied healthcare (other than what I get through the military, which is GREAT) so I never understand why people poo-poo the medical here. My wife had to get on Medicare because I lost my job and she was pregnant and NEEDED some type of coverage. The biggest change in how we were dealt with came from the doctors who seemingly looked down on us for having to have the "poor-peoples'" care. From what I understand that's only because Medicare has a lower rei

I've not had a ton of experience with the government supplied healthcare.

other than what I get through the military, which is GREAT

My wife had to get on Medicare because I lost my job and she was pregnant and NEEDED some type of coverage

Maybe I am missing something but both military healtchcare including the VA and Medicare are both essentially government provided healthcare. Of course the military healthcare is top-notch, our boys in uniform putting themselves in harms way deserve no less. Medicare for your wife too means it is government subsidized so while they pay out lower to providers you have the security of knowing that some scheming health insurance company isn't going to try and find a way to deny you coverage. Medicare will always be there (for the near future at least).

I am fortunate enough to have a good job which provides me private health insurance and the care I get is excellent but what really sucks about private health insurance for most people is that they live in fear of being dropped or priced out of the plan if they end up needing it too much. The appeal of a nationalized system to me is that I don't have to worry about engaging in grueling battles over the phone with insurance companies for tens of thousands of dollars when they just decide that they are not going to pay for your medical bills. Thats BS, in a civilized society I should be able to go to the hospital, leave after treatment and go on with my life. I would gladly pay higher taxes for that kind of luxury than live in fear that going to the hospital for a major problem could result in my going bankrupt.

American hospitals leave people to die in the gutter unless they have insurance or cash on hand.

No, it's quite the opposite. American hospitals are not allowed to turn people away just because they can't pay. They are forced by law to admit them and treat them, then release them. This used to be mostly illegal immigrants, but now is growing to include American citizens who just don't have insurance and can't afford the bills. To make ends meet, hospitals then have to jack up the prices on the people who CAN pay, which increases insurance costs, which then increases our premiums. It's a vicious cycle.

Sure, the US has awesome care if you are lucky enough to be able to afford it. But a HUGE chunk of the country isn't that lucky, and of the ones who can, they often pay a HUGE price to be able to afford it. And even then, once they've got it...yeah everything often goes great until things really get bad, and then that is when the insurance companies get creative in finding ways to cut you off.

My daughter was having problems with her doctors for her pregnancy claiming they cant do more than 1 ultrasound by law, she fell down and they REFUSED to do an ultrasound to make sure the placenta did not tear away.

I had her switch to my doctor who is a high cost doctor, but owns all the gear they use for Prenatal care. He took 15 minutes to check her out and give her another ultrasound to calm her fears. He also found that her iron levels were very low, something her Idiot doctor at the hospital could not be bothered to check.

She is married to an army soldier so they dont make very much, only $21.00 an hour for him. They cant afford to go to a competent doctor so instead use one of the doctors that are based in the hospital.

NOTE: my doctor is a very expensive one that has a lot of the equipment he owns and does outpatient surgury in his office, but he charged her NOTHING for a 1 hour personal visit on a weekend.

American healthcare is crap, we have a lot of crap doctors and crap hospitals with a few of the good ones that actually went into medicine to help people. Couple that with corrupt Insurance companies dictating to Doctors and Hospitals as well as stupid laws and you get crapcare that is what we enjoy here.

If you dont have a great job that has good healthcare insurance as well as a high paying job, you cant afford healthcare. With more than 50% of us making poverty level, no wonder that most of this country is fat, unhealthy, and not seeing a doctor regularly for health maintenance.

If you dont have a great job that has good healthcare insurance as well as a high paying job, you cant afford healthcare. With more than 50% of us making poverty level, no wonder that most of this country is fat, unhealthy, and not seeing a doctor regularly for health maintenance.

When my wife was pregnant with our first kid, there were some complications. We ended up getting a dozen ultrasounds over the course of the pregnancy. It cost us a total of $10 for the printouts, and those were optional. The first us was at 10 weeks when she looked like a little gummy bear. (She'll be 8 in 4 weeks.) The second kid had the same set of concerns so we get another dozen ultrasounds. (He'll be 6 in a few months.) Both times the complication was pre-eclampsia, excess fluid, and they were both too big so we got C-sections. (4.5kg, 38cm head circumference) For the first, the doctors used prostaglandin and oxytocin to induce labour, but it wouldn't work so we moved to an emergency c-section. The boy was late, so VBAC was canceled and we got another c-section.

Total cost, including hospital stay: $0.

I get my iron levels checked routinely, I've got my annual physical coming up (I call to make the appointment on my birthday) and it's 100% covered including any bloodwork. My wife gets several hormone levels and her iron levels checked on a regular basis too.

Now, it's not all free. We pay $120 a month for our family coverage. It covers basic services but not ambulance rides. (Some people were using them for taxis, so they put in a $65 fee for ambulance pickup. They bill you later, you don't have to whip out the traveller's cheques to get in like the time we my brother got hurt in the US.)

One time the kids got hit by a car and we were about 300m from the ambulance dispatch station. There was another family there, and I think the dispatcher said "send everybody...everybody" and everybody came. Five ambulances, less than a minute. The stroller was destroyed, the kids were rushed to the hospital, scanned and examined, and released that night. They even brought them stuffies to play with and keep them happy. (To this day we celebrate the stuffies' birthday.)

They have not refused him because he is too young, they have refused him on the medical grounds that the drug has not been proven to work except in moderate stage patients, and when he gets that far (hopefully not for some time) will let him have it...

He is on medication, just not Aricept

Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK... Something Terry is campaigning to change

"An American newspaper subsequently used Prof Hawking as an example of the deficiencies of the NHS. "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless," it claimed."

I think a Babbage quote fits this best (slightly adapted):

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

Having lived in Germany, England, and the United States, and used all three, I can say that while the NHS may not be perfect, it is lightyears ahead of even top-end private care in the United States (which I've also used). The UK would be complete fools to follow the US model (as some conservatives in government seem to want). People complain about 2-week waits in the UK for elective non-life threatening procedures, while in the US somone in my family had to wait 6-8 weeks for an angiogram after failing an EKG and having acute symptoms of heart trouble, and another waited 5 weeks for an appointment with a neurologist after having what may have been a mild embolism, complete with excruciating headache and shockingly low body temperature.

Americans who think our "free market ueber alles" system works better than Germany's strictly regulated market, or the UK's (or France's, or Canada's) are either idealogically blinded idiots, or have never taken a serious look beyond our borders. And I say that as one with a "cadallac" level of insurance in the US, which pales compared to what we had with the NHS when we lived in England (and what I received from the German system when I lived there).

. People complain about 2-week waits in the UK for elective non-life threatening procedures, while in the US somone in my family had to wait 6-8 weeks for an angiogram after failing an EKG and having acute symptoms of heart trouble, and another waited 5 weeks for an appointment with a neurologist after having what may have been a mild embolism, complete with excruciating headache and shockingly low body temperature.

I had an eye issue. Photophobia and it felt like something was in my eye. I went to a clinic to have them check it out. They found what looked like a corneal ulcer, a condition that could lead to blindness if the conditions are right. I had to wait for an hour to see an eye doctor.

My mother went to a doctor about a pain in her jaw when she walked in the morning. She had to schedule her appointment a week in advance as it was not an emergency, just jaw pain. During her appointment, the doctor suspected

Stephen Hawking: I would not be alive without the NHS [telegraph.co.uk]. This was his response to the amusing mistake by U.S. financial newspaper Investor's Business Daily, which claimed that Stephen Hawking was American, and that if Stephen Hawking were British, he would be dead.

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary," read a recent editorial from the paper. "The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script...

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

Were he American, he would probably be living in a 1 bedroom slum with 3 or 4 other medical pariahs. Crazy politicians would be lamenting his terrible sense of entitlement because he blinked (slowly) in morse code that he would like a new battery for his no longer working wheelchair.

Yes, however, the care delivered under the Liverpool Care Pathway is pain medication while withholding food and fluids until the patient dies. Under a law passed sometime in the last ten years, this decision is entirely up to the doctors with any patient deemed "mentally deficient" (a determination usually made after they begin administering morphine) with family being subject to arrest if they provide fluids and/or food to the patient after the doctors have made such a determination (without need to consul

There's something more here about his disease - I'm sorry the article doesn't really seem to go into it. Why, in particular, has he not had more significant diaphragmatic involvement leading to the respiratory failure that is typically seen at the end of life with ALS? I'm really glad he has an atypical case, but the money aspect pales in comparison to the luck he has with how his disease has progressed.

In the US, being poor and/or elderly makes it easier to get health care. Medicare/Medicaid covers a lot.

If Hawkings decided to take a job tomorrow in the US at some university, group health care would likely provide similar care to what he has now. Even before the recent laws, group health for large organizations paid for preexisting conditions.

It's folks that aren't poor but don't get benefits from other sources that are left out in the US. The poor and the elderly already have socialize medicine.

Though it may be true Hawking has better access to care than others today, when he was diagnosed at 21 I doubt anyone was falling all over themselves to work with yet another young academic struck ill. It is nothing short of astounding that he has survived (without a respirator) in the face of ALS, and equally astounding that his will to continue working in the face of losing all motor control has not been fazed.

No discredit to his staff a medical team, which I'm sure must be very able. He's beaten the odds against death, lost control of his physical body, and continued to do pioneering science work in the face of it. Those facets of Hawking have less to do with his current level of access to care, and more to do with his DNA and courage.

Not many people can afford full time staff to maintain their lives both personally and professionally. He has people so desperate to work with him that they train for years to understand his unique communication.

He also has access to an amazing amount of healthcare. Not many people can afford full time staff to maintain their lives both personally and professionally. He has people so desperate to work with him that they train for years to understand his unique communication.

Money and people who care do help, but a neighbor of mine came down with a related disease 3 years ago, she died 1 year ago, and not for lack of a caring family with the resources to do anything possible.

When your diaphragm is paralyzed, it's over, or at least very unpleasant to continue. Hawking has been unusually lucky that his disease did not spread to basic autonomic, or extensive cognitive functions, as it all too often does.

In Sweden, this is standard health care. Well, maybe not the most expensive equipment, but what is deemed required, along with nursing.

Severly disabled persons can even be nursed in their homes, 24x7, by their relatives, getting an average salary by the state. This costs the tax payers million SEKs a year, per disabled person (~USD $120k), covering three full time "employees" (3x8 hours=24 hours).

One of the reasons why we have some of the highest taxes in the world.

And, probably in the grand scheme of things, although a single person like him may be expensive, in total the amount of healthcare tax money being spent towards them is no big deal compared to dealing with, say, the effects of excessive alcohol intake in the general population.

I'm over here in Finland, somewhat severely disabled (nowhere near like Hawking, though), and can't help but feel that the kinds of systems we have in place also play a crucial part in making sure that people like myself are actually rather independently contributing to society up to their capacity instead of dropping out of the loop totally, becoming fully dependent charity objects... whom could be then blamed even more for the full dependency they have ended up in.

blinded. I married a European and as a result have been able to fly over there to get care. My experiences there have been far better, at far lower cost, than any I've ever had in the U.S. The equipment is newer and in better condition. The staff are friendlier, take more time to talk to you, and do better/cleaner jobs with procedures. The overhead of paperwork is far lower. There's a reason I am willing to fly across the Atlantic for medical and dental these days.

Tell it to an American and they will simply invent untruths to aid in their not believing you. Either you're lying or you have some kind of undue influence or they're treating you better because they know you're an American and they want to impress you so that you'll help them to immigrate into the U.S. (yes, I've been told that), or umpteen other nonsensical things. The only thing that they won't believe is the Occam's Razor case. The care is simply better because the system simply works better.

No, that couldn't possibly be it. Everyone knows that that eurosocialistcommunisttotalitarianantiamerican system is completely dysfunctional because biggovernmentneverworksandsocializedmedicineistheultimategovernmentboondogle.

Americans are just that way. There's a reason we're increasingly the laughing stock not just of Europe (where we've always been seen as quaint and ridiculous) but now even in places like the Pacific Rim and parts of Latin America that we still believe engage in a kind of colonial worship of us.

I love how people will still argue this point. America deserves to suffer unnecessarily because they are so afraid of someone else getting something "for free" that they are completely blind to the fact that they also could and should be receiving the same for how much they currently pay (actually less when taxes and average healthcare costs are factored in). Universal healthcare in the US will never happen and if it does it will be ruined by lobbyists and big pharmacy/healthcare which will ensure it is a f

"*Ahem* you don't know a thing about ALS, do you ? He was probably perfectly healthy until 21, at which point 1 diagnosis was (and is) pretty much all that could be done. As for disability aids, those were designed, operated and built by his "employer".And as far as I believe that house he has as part of his position comes complete with a butler (read : he gets to hire someone for that)."

Rather than speculate, let us read Stephen Hawking's own words [telegraph.co.uk] about his debt to the NHS.

The telling paragraph:"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

I would say the last sentence qualifies as evidence for the parent's statement about Stephen Hawking owing his life to the NHS.

That's the beauty of a universal healthcare system - everyone has access to the same treatment. They didn't treat him specially because he had international fame (in fact, the fame didn't come until later - it didn't affect his treatment by the NHS at all).

Compared to the US system which supposedly has that as a benefit, the UK system (which is far from perfect) is still *much* better off - we spend half the GDP per capita on healthcare compared to the US, and we cover everyone.

I'm not saying that it's a utopian system like Star Trek, but universal healthcare brings down the cost for everyone, to the benefit of everyone, while providing excellent care. The only "downside" is that it requires a population to be altruistic - in that the "some people can freeloa

i can give you a personal example of the FANTASTIC care available on the NHS here in Scotland

i was diagnosed with cancer in my bowels due to some villeous adenomas gone back. within a week of the diagnosis i was in an NHS hospital in Edinburgh getting them removed.

i then had a course of chemotherapy which was a wonderful treatment which didn't cause hair loss.. apparently the same stuff Iain dury had.. his cancer however was too far gone for it to help sadly but it certainly worked for me

ALL my treatment in hospital and the support care at home along with counselling, as i am telling you, NOTHING shakes the foundations of your being like a brush with mortality with the big C.

i also have arthritis in both my knees for which i get physio and medication and i paid NOTHING FOR ANY OF IT not even the medicines adn the standard of care was and if VERY high indeed.

i have been told that due to the advanced crepitus in my left knee that i will have to have a new left knee in the next 18-24 months..... and that and the support and follow on care will be provided to me for free

My kids were born at the new Edinburgh royal infirmary maternity unit,a fanfastic and very high tech and well appointed place with BRILLIANT staff.. again.. no charge.

the follow on care for the kids.. health visits froma district nurse type that monitors the health of the child and offers advice and help was also free.

i have paid my taxes and my national insurance payments and this is why i think it's a fantastic investment , not only for myself and my family but also from an employers point of view.......... a healthy employee is a happy and productive one especially when he doesn't have to worry about doctors or dentist fees

the care and treatment i have had would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds if i had been in the likes of America where profit for the HMO's comes before giving a fuck about your fellow countrymen/women and children.long live the NHS and even though i am not a religious man at all.. bless them for the brilliant work that they do BECAUSE THEY CARE!

when you can use a service and pay nothing extra for it, you might forgive a person's use of the word "free". it's certainly accurate in terms of its impact on that person's life. especially when the tax is collected in proportion to your ability to pay, so it's not like it's a "fixed expense" to any given person.

it's the ultimate insurance. everyone is in, no one is out, and there is no profit motive to denying you care, just a regard for the actual resources available. awesome.

Feynman, Gamow, Heisenberg all instantly come to mind as GOOD best seller physics popular science writers. There are probably a lot more BAD ones, example the new age quantum mech guy Zukav, but I can only instantly think of four good ones. You can troll by arguing about Greene, him being a string theorist means hes not a real physicist rather a theoretical mathematician, but he does live in the physics community despite mostly doing theoretical math, so I guess he counts. Lets call it five good ones.

The puzzle is how come there are so many Physicist / Popular science book authors? In comparison, the biochemists have Asimov, and... um yeah they've got Asimov, truly a great, yet only one individual. How about biologists? Other than the "poke a stick at the creationist nutters" of which there must be hundreds all writing the same thing, all they've got is Rachel Carson... So I ask again, how come there's so many best selling physicist authors?

I wonder if he was misdiagnosed and has something else? That would be embarrassing.

Another option is the disease might kill old people regardless of how young its diagnosed. I read up on this and the untold medical surprise is he was diagnosed at 21... most people get this diagnosis around 60 and die within a decade, in other words, around 70. Of course most people die around 70 anyway, plus or minus 20 years or so. Its quite possible if he dies around his current 70ish (Although I wish him well and I hope he lives to be a happy centurion, in the good morning america tradition, not the ancient roman tradition) the disease would none the less be consistent in killing people around age 70.

For a similar yet completely unrelated example, genealogical research shows my ancestors uniformly seem to croak in the 80s from cardiovascular disease if nothing else gets them first (like warfare, farm accidents, etc), it just seems to be the scotsman/german way to go, I suppose you could diagnose me with that disease at age 5 if you want, and wait until I croak at 85 like most of my ancestors, but that wouldn't be a medical miracle, more of a very likely prediction.

ALS is well understood to be a "highly variable" disease. Meaning, they know that they don't know what it's going to do - sucks when a loved one gets it because there's always that "glimmer of hope" that it will stop before it kills them, but in 99% of cases, that's not true at the 5 year mark.

The funny thing is that I've heard a lot of creationists saying his condition is a result of defying God (by being a scientist apparently). If I were a creationist, then the fact that he's defied his condition for half a century would tell me that either 1) Hawkings is stronger than God or 2) someone up there is looking out for.

But I'm not a creationist, so I'll chalk it up to his willingness to fight and his access to good healthcare. And maybe random dumb luck.

But I'm not a creationist, so I'll chalk it up to his willingness to fight and his access to good healthcare. And maybe random dumb luck.

I've worked in and around medical devices and healthcare for 2 decades, and in that time I've seen a whole lot of "use it or lose it" principle in halting disease progression. It is certainly no guarantee, but odds are better that you will be able to keep doing something if you keep doing it. Basically, "bed rest" is evil and should be avoided at every opportunity.

A whole lot of "good healthcare" is social support, keeping the patient active - sort of the opposite of your typical ICU experience.

I'm a Christian but not a creationist. I have a degree in physics and a degree in theology. And I thank God for Stephen Hawking and the insight that his incredible mind has given us into the universe, despite his defiance of God. I read his book "A Brief History of Time" and it blew my mind, it was one of the factors that led me to study physics. I used his latest book, "The Grand Design" in my honours thesis for my theology degree which was an investigation into the appearance of fine-tuning in the universe.

Not looking for an argument, just want to point out that not all Christians have the anti-science attitudes that seem so prevalent in American evangelicanlism.

The funny thing is that I've heard a lot of creationists saying his condition is a result of defying God (by being a scientist apparently). If I were a creationist, then the fact that he's defied his condition for half a century would tell me that either 1) Hawkings is stronger than God or 2) someone up there is looking out for.

Whenever evil flourishes, the innocent and the righteous are slaughtered or struck by injury or disease the fanatics always rewrite reality until it fits their religion. The innocent weren't truly innocent, the righteous weren't truly righteous, evil exists as a punishment for our sins and so on. God is perfect and infallible so if you punched them in the face and said "If God didn't want you to get punched in the face, why didn't he stop me?" they'd secretly accept that as some sort of punishment or trial by God for their pride or to test their faith. If I'd given them a gracious donation to their church, they'd see it as a blessing from God.

There's always some explanation that fits reality, and when it really doesn't you just say he works in "mysterious ways" that us humans can't comprehend. If he'd died, that is God. If he continues to live with the disease, that's also God prolonging it. If he'd been miraculously cured, that would be by the grace of God. It's like a game show with God behind every door, no matter which you pick. Religion is the anthropomorphization of reality, that behind everything there's an invisible man pulling invisible strings. And no matter what you say you can't prove the strings don't exist.

Which at this point is surprising to me. He did pioneering work on the physics of black holes, and was the first to theorize on what is now called Hawking Radiation. That seems like a pretty good accomplishment. Do you suppose the relative lack of experimental confirmation keeps him from it?

On the other hand, the Nobel committee has been known to overlook some rather obvious candidates. Einstein never received a Nobel for his work on relativity (special or general) or his contributions to quantum mechanics. His prize was given for his explanation of the photoelectric effect [wikipedia.org] which, while an important contribution, most people don't know about.

Getting your name on a physics theory/phenomenon is a much larger accomplishment then a nobel prize. Who remembers nobel prize winners? I bet the list of scientists with names in physics that everyone knows is larger then the list of nobel prize winners that people know.

i think it would be an interesting study, even an informal one, to see how many other people have a physical condition that is listed as "unsurvivable within period X" and to see if there is a correlation between them "defying the predictions" and, as hawking himself puts it, having "something to live for".

put another way: how many people have, on learning of their condition, literally lost the will to live, and how many took it as a challenge to fight for their right to life and a purpose?

I happen to know about this thesis as my wife is the author. Her interest in the subject arose from her own experiences as survivor of childhood cancer with a 1% chance of survival. That's right, she had a 1% chance of surviving her cancer and somehow did. She has gone on to be a Pediatric Oncology Nurse and is now working on her PhD. She has personal,

LOL thats Hawking himself who wrote "Whether I'm a genius is more open to doubt".He's a humble guy despite all he's done. Basically an anti-politician. That's what would make him a great national leader, if he wanted to do that. Him being smart enough to not want to take a bite of that sh1t sandwich says a lot about the current world situation.